Community Psychology Practice

Friday, January 26, 2018

In his piece “A Scholar, But Not a Professor,”Michel R. Wingshares his journey as a scholar who has officially left the academe, yet has lead a fulfilled life, full of scientific discovery and exploration. He also provides some concrete advice to those who might be interested in following in his career direction. For the full article, follow thislink to thechronicleviate's blog.

Friday, July 15, 2016

The mutual regard of practice and theory in community psychology is kind of like having dinner with co-workers or clients. There’s general amicability and some measure of respect, but the awkwardness never quite leaves the room. You can tell a joke, but not THAT joke. You can be friendly but not too familiar. The tension in the room encompasses both acknowledgement and the guilt of unrealized obligations.

Practice relies heavily on the internalization by practitioners of theories learned through rigorous academic education and/or experience, but the building of theory and the rigor of the theory itself to withstand the buffeting winds of research may not be on the priority list for a day’s work.

Luckily for practitioners and academics alike, there is a conversation occurring right now about the robustness of community psychology theory, the degree to which that robustness is important in practice, and the responsibility of community psychologists to contribute to current and new CP theory. Led by Dr. Leonard Jason (DePaul University) and his colleagues, this conversation needs many voices to shape the future of how community psychology is practiced and taught. Are the theories we hold dear actually theories? What does that mean? Does something that doesn’t qualify as a “theory” per se make the work based on that idea less valid? What happens to logic modeling if the logic is not what we thought? These are the questions tackled and published in the current issue of the Global Journal of Community Psychology Practice and the questions that need the voices of practitioners in order to navigate the future of CP.

The world needs its community psychologists now more than ever. How does the field make its way forward? The conversation may not have a conclusive end, but it must have a vigorous beginning. Join it now!

Thursday, May 5, 2016

This Friday, May 6th, we will have our monthly Community Psychology Practice Council Peer Consultation Call, @ 2 p.m. EST, 1 p.m. CST, for a unique space to support each other in our community work, an informal chance to share our work with colleagues and request help and ideas regarding your work. Students, recent graduates and seasoned professionals are all welcome to attend these calls. If you are interested in joining us on a call, please contact tom@tomwolff.com

Thursday, March 31, 2016

So sayeth Dr. Marc Edwards, someone known for challenging systems in the interest of helping communities in crisis. Most recently, Dr. Edwards has been recognized for blowing the whistle on the water infrastructure failure in Flint, MI. The Community Psychology Practice Blog is sharing an interview Dr. Edwards gave regarding both Flint as well as the important role of science in protecting people and communities.

While Edwards has degrees in biophysics and engineering, he endorses many values that correspond to the practice of community psychology. Identifying as a scientist generally, he notes in the interview shared here, “Science should be about pursuing the truth and helping people. If you’re doing it for any other reason, you really ought to question your motives.” The discipline of community psychology espouses this very concept, and, as many practitioners know all too well, the path to public good can be . . . bumpy. Dr. Edwards argues that this path is made even more dangerous by the ways academia incentivizes its faculty to refrain from dissention when funders (especially governmental funders) might be called into question. The desire to fund good work can sometimes overshadow the warning that something is wrong, especially when those funding relationships might evaporate with one disagreement or media interview.

Everything in life has a price: emotional, financial, temporal. How does this value of give and take get reflected in our science? Do our motivations mirror the intention to do good despite the funding trap that leads to silence when warnings should be shouted? Dr. Edwards argues that “the systems built to support scientists do not reward moral courage and that the university pipeline contains toxins of its own — which, if ignored, will corrode public faith in science.” That corrosion can be seen in a wide range of domains from the environment, to education, to homelessness, to substance abuse treatment. Historical abuse of vulnerable populations and communities of color continue and compound distrust as more and more scientists are silenced in the name of expediency. How do we fund good programs and the scientific evaluations of those programs without losing our way when unanticipated results may not be favorable?

Friday, March 25, 2016

A key set of community psychology practice competencies directly or indirectly relate to policy. If community psychology sets our goals to create systemic community change then policy change is a critical and often under-reported component of our work. In this special issue we are fortunate to read about diverse efforts from across the globe related to policy. I want to thank the special issue editors (Douglas D. Perkins, Manuel García-Ramírez, Isabel Menezes, Irma Serrano-García, and Melissa Strompolis (USA, Spain, Portugal, Puerto Rico), contributors, and reviewers for assembling a thoughtful international collection of articles highlighting the experiences and insights from community psychologists focusing on policy. This is an especially rich collection of writings. There is much to learn from these articles and also suggest additional attention to this topic.

In addition, in a previous GJCPP issue I mentioned that I was interested in GJCPP helping make connections on issues, ideas, and topics. I’m happy to say we have a provocative launch to our opinion pieces in attempt to create conversation and connections with our readers. Tom Wolff has provided a Guest Editorial entitled: Ten Places Where Collective Impact Gets It Wrong. While the views in it do not necessarily represent the views of GJCPP, I do hope it will spur an active conversation on the topic. We’ve provided several mechanisms where comments, counterpoints, examples/experiences, etc can be shared related to Collective Impact via GJCPP. You can comment directly under the article, email editor@gjcpp.org, or comment on this post on our Facebook page. I’d encourage you and your colleagues to join the conversation.

We will learn from this attempt to create conversation and connection so that future issues of GJCPP can do even more.

THEory into ACTion

Nicholtown Child and Family Collaborative Project Coordinator,PhD Student at Clemson University, Institute for Family and Neighborhood Life

The
Nicholtown Child and Family Collaborative project aims to create a
community-based, two-generation community center in a high-needs area of
Greenville, South Carolina, known as Nicholtown. This paper provides an outline
of the steps taken to achieve progress towards this purpose, as well as
recommendations and lessons learned for others who wish to execute similar
projects.

Overview of Nicholtown Child and
Family Collaborative (NCFC) Purpose

NCFC was established to provide
services for the children and families of Nicholtown to improve child outcomes;
provide parent training, education, and employment; and build lasting community
infrastructure (1,
2). The project will
include a two-generation model, a standard that has been used by Head Start and
other welfare reform programs since the 1980s and 1990s (3-5). It has been noted that two-generation
programs share 3 important features: 1) a developmentally appropriate early
childhood program, 2) a parenting education component, and 3) an adult
education, literacy, or job skills and training component (6).

Methods
and Procedure

Why Nicholtown?

The City of Greenville laid out a
Neighborhood Plan in 2011, which included a Master Plan for Nicholtown, an
urban neighborhood encompassing 390 acres in the heart of Greenville (7). The Master Plan for Nicholtown
was an indicator of long-standing interest in revitalizing the historic
neighborhood. Nicholtown community members had been pleased with the housing
progress in their neighborhood, but were disgruntled by the inattention to their
children and community. They wanted a school and community center that would
provide resources for their children and families. Therefore, after demolition
and reconstruction of low-income housing had been completed (the first step of
the Master Plan), the next step was to provide for the children and families of
Nicholtown.

Setting up the Collaborative

Identification
and recruitment of stakeholders. Chandra Dillard, a South Carolina State
Representative, began work on assembling the Collaborative in 2012, shortly
after the first housing revitalization steps of the Nicholtown Master Plan were
complete. She heard the needs of her community, and first sought to rectify the
situation by approaching the executive director of SHARE/Head Start in Greenville
County. SHARE/Head Start was the first contact due to the fact that the housing
phase of the Master Plan had inadvertently eradicated and not relocated the
former location of Head Start in Nicholtown. Head Start was in favor of building
a new early learning facility for its return to Nicholtown, and advised the
Nicholtown Representatives to start a collaborative of professionals who could
properly research and fundraise for this effort.

The next step was to approach
organizations with vested interests in children, families, communities, and
education. Greenville community leaders with success in projects like NCFC’s,
people who could guide best practices and outcomes, and Nicholtown community
members and leadership were invited to join the NCFC. Current stakeholders
include local healthcare providers; community finance leadership; local, city, state
and federal organizations with interest in children and families; elected
officials (community, city, state); attorneys; Nicholtown community members;
local universities; the Nicholtown Neighborhood Association; Nicholtown
community centers; marketing professionals; and construction professionals. The
most recent estimated number of NCFC members (as of January 2016) was 36,
including the Project Coordinator and Collaborative Chair.

Collaborative’s
first steps. May
2014, a consultant was hired to begin work on a sustainable strategy for moving
forward with the NCFC Project. Once the assessment of Nicholtown and the
Greenville community was complete, a final presentation was given to the
Nicholtown Early Learning Collaborative and its Stakeholders. Several useful
documents were generated to guide progress, including the “Nicholtown Early
Learning Collaborative (now NCFC) Recommendations” (1).

Recommendations were soon acted upon
following the consultant’s final analysis for NCFC progress, including organization
and structure; volunteer committees to address different aspects of the work;
and hiring a project coordinator. The project coordinator

·assessed
materials provided by the United Way of Greenville.

·worked
towards gathering data and tools used by the consultant and other
research/analyst and nonprofit entities to understand the work that had been previously
done, and determine the best way forward in executing the NCFC recommendations
and plan.

·met
with the consultants to receive data, learn more about the methods and process
for data collection, and hear feedback about the project and its direction.

·met
with Collaborative members, Chairs of each existing committee, as well as
“priority” people involved with the Collaborative.

·met
with Head Start leadership, as this was clearly a direction that the NCFC
recommendations and key Collaborative members were in agreement that the NCFC
project should go.

·placed
high priority on forming strong relationships with leadership at the
recommended site for NCFC programs and progress.

·sought
relationships with other non-profits working in the neighborhood to understand
what other services were being provided (or not) in the area.

·referred
back to the recommendations provided by the consultant, as well as the data
from the community (1) to explore potential partners
missing from the NCFC. High priority was placed on finding resources that could
be placed in Nicholtown to serve both the community and NCFC goals for no cost
to NCFC.

Community
Engagement Events

A
community engagement event was held in late 2015; at least 33 adults and 25
children from the Nicholtown community attended and participated. NCFC
leadership shared progress and gathered feedback on the project, as a result of
the survey data that was collected from them. The purpose of this event was to
involve the Nicholtown community in the NCFC process as active participants in
the project.

Implementing
Existing Greenville Resources into Nicholtown

Leadership
from a local healthcare system, NCFC, and leadership from the identified
Nicholtown community empowerment site met to discuss potential partnerships.The Greenville Health System will
provide a mobile clinic at least once a month that will be parked at the
community hub. Furthermore, discussions between a service for young children
who have special developmental needs, the NCFC, and the mobile clinic have
initiated interest in bringing services to Nicholtown. Additionally, discussions with the Department of Health and
Environmental Control (DHEC) have indicated that there is interest in returning
to Nicholtown to facilitate health needs for families and children.

Trips
to Visit Similar Projects

The ultimate goal of the NCFC,
supported by the Nicholtown Master Plan and the recommendations from the
consultant (1,
8), is to create a
two-generation community empowerment center. The community empowerment center
will place heavy emphasis on early learning, but will also offer support to
children and their families as children grow. Therefore, with these goals in
mind, we decided to visit other successful projects both in the South Carolina
Upstate and the Southeastern U.S. in order to learn from their achievements and
pitfalls. Lessons learned from each visit were reported and discussed at NCFC
meetings.

Findings
and Lessons Learned

Continuing the work and momentum
generated thus far for the NCFC will require several factors, first and
foremost being financial resources. It is difficult to do work on such a large
scale without paid employees, and it is quite impressive that the NCFC has been
able to come as far as it has with limited financial resources. This indicates
that there is interest among stakeholders for this project to succeed; since
this is a project that engages the Nicholtown community, there is also interest
in the project’s success from the community perspective. In order to continue
this trajectory, aside from financial resources, the thoughtful and deliberate
recommendations set forth by the consultant should continue to be followed. Furthermore,
Israel’s (9,
10) and Holden’s (11) guidelines for successful
community engagement work should be followed. Below is a brief list of other
findings and lessons learned:

Data Reviews

·Reviews
of the data collected by the consultant indicate that there is interest both
within Nicholtown, and in the greater Greenville community in the NCFC project
and its goals, including stakeholders who are already involved in NCFC,
entities who would potentially provide financial support, and the Nicholtown
community members/residents (1).

Stakeholders

·Each
person comes to the project with her own agenda. This can make achieving the
goals of the NCFC challenging at times, requiring strong leadership,
communication, and negotiation. The group must be unified by the common goal of
serving the children (and families) of Nicholtown.

·Relationships
with stakeholders must be fostered, and it is essential to keep them engaged in
the project’s progress.

·It
is fundamentally important to assess current stakeholders in the NCFC project
when considering a new aspect of work that must be done to further the NCFC
goals. As a volunteer Collaborative with only one paid staff member, it is
crucial to sustain and make use of the resources present within the Collaborative.

Review Goals

·Continue
to re-examine the recommendations set forth by the consultant to ensure that
there are not gaps that could be filled by new stakeholders.

·Each
person involved in NCFC has a different skillset, and may be able to identify
gaps that others may overlook.

Insights from other projects

·Site
visits were helpful in considering possible paths forward, ways to address
challenges, team-building and fostering relationships within NCFC,
self-discovery of assets and resources, and gaining concrete concepts of similar
successful.

Conclusion

The NCFC project is an ongoing
project in the heart of Greenville, South Carolina, which is in the Upstate
region of the state. Collaborative members and leadership have worked hard to
make this an inclusive project that engages the community as it progresses. Much
work remains to be done, but a mindful adherence to recommendations from
consultants and community engagement frameworks will guide the project to
successful, community-accepted completion.

This
is one of a series of bulletins highlighting the use of community psychology in
practice. Comments, suggestions, and questions are welcome. Please direct them
to Tabitha Underwood at underwoodtabitha@gmail.com.

Culture, Context, and Community Intervention: An Ecological Perspective and Example
This interactive webinar will provide an ecological perspective on the processes and goals of community intervention and exemplify the fundamental role of culture and context through an example from work conducted with Alaska Native villages around suicide prevention through cultural renewal. An opportunity will be given for webinar participants to offer comments or questions and speak directly with the presenter.

3 main learning objectives
1. Understand components of an ecological framework (not Bronfenbrenner).
2. How an ecological perspective differs from evidence-based practice.
3. Developing community resources as the primary community intervention goal.

Edison J. Trickett, Ph.D., is Professor Emeritus at the University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC) and Dean’s Scholar at the University of Miami, School of Education. He received his Ph.D. in Psychology from the Ohio State University, was a post-doctoral fellow at Stanford University, and held faculty positions at Yale University, the University of Maryland, and University of Illinois at Chicago before joining the faculty at the University of Miami. Throughout his career, his research has focused on the development of an ecological perspective within his field of community psychology for conducting community research and intervention. His writings have emphasized the role of culture, social context, and collaboration in conducting respectful community-based research and intervention. He has written extensively about community interventions designed to affect community development. In addition, during the past 20 years he has focused on the role of public schools in the acculturation and adaptation of immigrant and refugee adolescents and families. He has published over 150 books, book chapters, and scholarly papers, has served as President of Division 27 of the American Psychological Association, received its award for Distinguished Contribution to Theory and Research in Community Psychology, the Seymour Sarason award, and served as Editor of that field’s primary journal, The American Journal of Community Psychology.